Obama’s War Speech Wins Over Some Skeptics

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerum form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.

Only God can help us now. I pray He gives us our country back from the GIANTS in our land.

Religious people are famous for this. Let's not delve into this issue, or demand change, or rise up against the powers at be... let's just pray for some miracle to happen... maybe superman will come save us, something just as likely. Religion is the most dangerous barrier to rational thinking in the history of human existence... It fosters apathy and powerlessness where desperate action is necessary.

Bush X1. Rock on conservatives, its working great. Fucking idiots, our country has been broke for YEARS, and you yet you didn't care to complain about it until Obama came onto the scene.

Your disappointment is unwarranted on a level I cannot even begin to describe.

Any Obama supporter surprised and distressed by this Afghanistan surge is a fucking idiot.

Any Obama critic who thinks this Afghanistan surge is proof of Obama going back on his word is a fucking idiot.

Were you guys fucking ASLEEP during his campaign?

I hate to say this slarabee...but I agree with calm_incense (though I might not have called anyone an idiot). Any shock over this policy really surprises me. He said over and over again during the campaign that we needed more troops in Afghanistan. It was in just about every debate and it in every foreign policy discussion. Clinton said the same thing by the way. I agree that it's a mess. I agree that it is terribly sad that this war is going to continue (that any war is going to continue). I agree that there should be disappointment at the the position we're in. And I don't even agree that this is the right policy. I'm not convinced there is one in fact. There certainly aren't any ideas coming from the haters on this site. But this simply was not a betrayal at all. In fact he's keeping a campaign promise (I wish he'd kept others).

I expect the haters out there to take every opportunity to bash the President. Haters are going to hate like the sun is going to rise. But making hard decisions that a lot of people will disagree with (that I disagree with) is what leaders have to do sometime. I'm happy we now have an adult making those tough calls.

I don't think slarabee said he was shocked, just disappointed.

Maybe shock is too strong a word in slarabee's case. Maybe surprise or disappointment would be better. Only he can say for sure...but that fact that Obama is doing what he ran on stands.

I'd love to see a discussion of what people believe the right plan for Afghanistan is. If Obama is wrong...what's right?

And the one continuing it. Keep those blinders on.

I agree that oil is a big part of the problem. And there's no doubt that it played a part in why we have been mired in this war for 8 years. But our country was attacked. The Taliban government in Afghanistan played a part in that attack by sheltering Al-Qaeda. This is a fact. And the vast majority of the country supported the use of military force in Afghanistan. Also a fact. Was it bungled? Absolutely. Should we have demanded a better job be done by our leaders? No doubt. But what do we do now? What's the answer? I've seen scores of snide quips, baseless accusations and endless complaints. What I haven't seen is a single suggestion of what the right thing to do is. No realistic analysis. No critical thinking. Just bitching.

But then...what should I expect. And you talk about blinders, please.

As for me, I don't see a good solution here. I don't think there is any "right answer" (if you do...please make a case). All I see is a bunch of bad choices. The one thing I do know is that having a plan, even one you might not agree with, is better than NOT having one. But that gets dangerously close to giving the President some credit...and we can't have that, can we?

If what you say is true, then why do you support the continuance of the war?

"You can't be against 'surges' and war under Bush and for the same thing under Obama or vice versa."

Yes, in fact, I can. I do not view every war as the same, nor do I view every situation as the same. I differentiate between situations.

Its also worth noting that Obama admitted during th campaign that the surge had been a successes.

"Your credibility is then lost."

To whom? You? WhiteNoise? etc. Because I don't care if I've lost credibility with you or most anyone else on current. However, there are others whose opinions of me I take seriously. Why? Because they are even keeled, rational, generally educated and have had a history of telling me things straight up, whether I'd like to hear them or not.

With all of that said, its worth noting that a number of users on current, some of whom I talk to, have sent me messages thanking me for my dedication. Interestingly enough, some have come from conservative, some moderates and others whom are liberals.

"Where are people's convictions?"

They're here, you just don't agree with them.

"Merriam Webster definition of conviction -

3 a : a strong persuasion or belief b : the state of being convinced
synonyms - certainty, opinion"

I'll give you a very basic Idea of one of my core convictions. I firmly stand behind the idea that most situations require a realistic view of the world and that most every situation should be judged as objectively as possible. I endeavor to take every opinion seriously. I believe compromise is necessary, whether it is popular or not. I belive that pragmatism is necessary. And that day by day I should asses myself and my reactions to others.

As to party, I've voted Libertarian, Republican and Democratic.

It's the same war. It's just being run by someone you support and believe in as opposed to someone you don't. The end result is the same.

It's amazing to me how many people, like Jan and Sam, who claim to be educated do not seem to understand that Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same place.

It's called having an agenda.

I don't know about Sam, but for some people the equation is simple...Obama = bad. Anything else, like critical thinking, just gets in the way. So two wars in DIFFERENT countries that were engaged in for very DIFFERENT reasons become the same thing. And two DIFFERENT policies from two DIFFERENT Presidents become the same thing. See, as long as Obama = bad, then nothing else matters.

Doug,

Although I do not recall the claim of being educated, I am fully aware that Iraq and A'stan are two different places with differing circumstances. I am also aware that the A'stan policy is not a reversal of what Obama campaigned on. He said A'stan was the place all along. In my view, we went to remove the Taliban and that has already been achieved. I do not support nation building because who are we to tell anyone else how to live or organize themselves economically or politically? That being said, I wish Obama tremendous success as he is me and my family and my country's leader. I wish him good health and clear judgment--even if I think his continuance of this Bush policy will lead to more deaths.

Krag,

I agree that there are folks who just don't like Obama, Bush, Palin (fill in the blank for whomever) and that those people tend not to engage in the debate. It is easy for them to say, "I don't like the source" or "all people from that party are bad" etc etc. A flawed argument can be debunked regardless of the source. I wish more people would engage in debate without resorting to character assassination.

I don't think pointing out someone's intellectual dishonesty is character assassination. But maybe that's not what you're saying. And I hope you noticed that I excluded you from that observation Sam.

I assume when you say "it's the same war" you mean the war in Afghanistan is the same war just with a new Commander in Chief. If not, and you (like many others here) are trying to suggest that the war in Iraq is the same as the war in Afghanistan...then you're kidding yourself. I don't know a single educated person who thinks that's the case.

Ah, just like the Bush years. You're almost giddy about this. You like children getting blown up too? Gotta keep pushing that boogeyman. Just remember, the blood is on Obama's hands now as well.

Giddy?

So that's what it's come to? Supporting the President equals being "giddy" at the thought of children dying. What a disgusting comment.

So much for taste.

so in order to get out of Afghanistan we have to send more troops, i guess 'war is peace,' 'freedom is slavery and 'ignorance is strength'

McCain would have approved 40,000 new troops several months ago and would have conducted no review of the strategy. He would not have planned any timeline for withdrawal and would have made the American commitment in Afghanistan open-ended. He was on tv after Obama's speech saying so.

That difference is only subtle. The real difference between them is intangible. Instead of other countries offering more troops, they would be pulling them out. Pakistan would not be co-operating. Future dialog with Iran on the issue would be out of the question. Muslim sentiment in the world would be MUCH less in our favor and much more in the Taliban's favor. Public support for the war in America would be lower and the issue would be much more divisive than it already is.

Doug,

You write "That difference is only subtle. The real difference between them is intangible."

I could not agree more.

Well said Doug. So many comments...so little actual analysis. Thank you for yours.

One country attacked us and one did not. It's really simple. One was a war for profit and one is a war of necessity.

How did Afghanistan attack us or are you referring to the attacks on American pilots enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq?

This is exactly what we want. The Taliban have two options:
1) Negotiate, make peace, wait for us to leave and take the country
2) Fight and be destroyed
I'm glad to hear they are thinking about the latter.

You last sentence is false and explains your confusion about this whole thing.

Gee, it's like the Taliban suddenly felt threatened and felt a desperate need to assert authority before it was crushed.

Just out of curiosity, how do these numbers rate compared to the monthly soldier deaths that took place in Iraq?

It's the corporate media, by and for the corporations, not the people. The people can die. Wall Street rules.

See my above post for my position. But on what you said, that we have already been there for 8 years I say:

The reality is that while we have been there for 8 years, Bush did nothing and letting the situation deteriorate by shifting focus away from our true objectives and concentrating in an unnecessary war in Iraq. So in reality it is as if though we are still at square one.

If we were to leave now, it would be as if we did not solve anything in the first place. Obama must now solve the problem that his predecessor left behind.

If Afghanistan is abandoned and falls again into the depths of instability and a new attack is launched on this country... THEN WHAT?

It happened before, it can happen again, especially if the same conditions that provided a safe haven for terrorist organizations are recreated by the Taliban when we leave.

You really are lead around by the nose aren't you, hook line and sinker.

Tell me o wise one, why does killing innocent Afghans stop terrorists from attacking America? You think terrorists only exist in Afghanistan? You think they are all holed up there and have no ability to travel anywhere else in the world including the US? All they have to do is hide out in Pakistan or Iran or any number of countries, even in the US, even in our own military. What then? You going to blow all of them up and create even more terrorists?

Why not start up a Nazi party to send all Muslims to the gas chamber? Think that will work?

What makes you think terrorists have a territory? Who said they all have to stay in Afghanistan while we go there to rape and kill their little sisters?

War begets war. Violence begets violence. It will not end until someone quits, and they aren't going to quit in their own country, neither would we, neither would anyone.

WE HAVE LOST! Face it. There is no way to recover except to leave.

The ignorance and pure stupidity of your uninformed statements are enough to drive someone insane trying to answer them. I'm not saying you're stupid. But you are certainly uneducated and ignorant, or more likely, you're a military shill.

Can you list even one credible reference that explains why what you say makes a lick of sense? I have pointed you to a whole set of films on Afghanistan with all kinds of experts including military scholars, CIA people, GIs who were there, all of them explaining how wrong you are.

What and who do you have to prove your lame TV hyped arguments?

Not even a link. You are completely not credible and your arguments are baseless and empty.

Jon, if you really have to know, I am a student at Florida Int'l University and my major is International Relations with a focus on the Middle East and Security Studies. I am proud to say that I am also a good student.

Up until now you were very respectful. If you are going to resort to labeling me an idiot then we are done. I'm dissapointed that we could not agree to disagree without resorting to personal attacks.

So this is your answer? When backed into a corner you hide behide your educational instituion and bruised ego? No answers to my questions? You have to reduce it to a personal level? I am not being personal when I go after your perceptions as being ignorant, uneducated and misinformed. I am addressing your responses only, not you as a person. You should have the intelligencve to distinguish this. This is a civil discussion. Bush had a Yale education. What does that prove?

Answer the questions if you can or go hide behind your little damaged ego as I know you will:

1. Why does killing innocent Afghans stop terrorists from attacking America?
2. You think terrorists only exist in Afghanistan?
3. You think they are all holed up there and have no ability to travel anywhere else in the world including the US? All they have to do is hide out in Pakistan or Iran or any number of countries, even in the US, even in our own military.
4. What then? You going to blow all of them up and create even more terrorists?

So your solution is for us to leave and allow the Taliban to reoccupy the country?

The reality is that while we have been there for 8 years, Bush did nothing and letting the situation deteriorate by shifting focus away from our true objectives and concentrating in an unnecessary war in Iraq. So in reality it is as if though we are still at square one.

If we were to leave now, it would be as if we did not solve anything in the first place. Obama must now solve the problem that his predecessor left behind.

If Afghanistan is abandoned and falls again into the depths of instability and a new attack is launched on this country... THEN WHAT?

It happened before, it can happen again, especially if the same conditions that provided a safe haven for terrorist organizations are recreated by the Taliban when we leave.

Why don't the leaders of this country ever admit defeat? Because defeat is not an option.

Hello? It's their country. They already occupy it. Our troops there are a drop in the bucket of the huge landscape. That's what failed Russia. It's what failed us. It's over! We already failed.

Unfortunately, as much as it hurts to admit failure, we have failed. Did that possibility ever cross your mind?

You can blow up all the Afghan school children you want. All it does is motivate terrorists, not stop them. How the hell do you think that will stop them?

If an army occupied your country and blew up all your family and friends, would that make you stop fighting back, or would it make you fight even more?

They even prefer the Taliban over us, as bad as the Taliban are. Fact.

Who ever said that they want the Taliban? The Taliban is hugely unpopular among most of the people in the country.

And no. Failure is not an option, especially when it means inviting another 9/11 to occur.

You are seriously uneducated in the reality of Afghanistan. The Afghan people are inbetween the Taliban who kill them and the U.S. troops who alsoill them. It is a known fact that they prefer to deal with the Taliban than the U.S. troops.

I will agree to disagree with you on that main point. The Afghan people do not necessarily support the Taliban.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/24/world/asia/24afghan.html?_r=2&partner=rss&...

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2009/11/22/afghan_militias_sprout...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0413/p06s10-wosc.html

What they crave is stability and security. The surge will allow us to train the Afghan security forces to provide that, and it will keep the pressure off of the Afghan security forces.

And if it fails, Obama already said that we are withdrawing in 2011, regardless. Bush completely neglected the country after he went to Iraq, so it is only now that we are truly focusing on doing the job we originally were there to do.

What the hell makes you think this will make it any more stable? If anything, it will make it more unstable. The more troops we push in the worse it gets, the more terrorism we motivate, This will escalate things worse so that when it does O will come back with, gee wiz, we'd better send in 30,000 more.

That will not be the case because the insurgency in Afghanistan is not a popular insurgency like the one that we experienced in Vietnam. It is not a popular insurgency in response to an occupation, it is an insurgency by the Taliban, not the people.

Many people fear that it will take the same course that it did in Iraq or Vietnam, but to think so would be to igore the different circumstances.

Whitenoise

I repeatedly see the same argument again and again for withdrawal. Most of the assumptions paint Afghanistan as being similar to Vietnam. When someone argues terrorism will follow us home if we withdraw prematurely, I imagine that you argue that that was the argument in Vietnam... You know, that communism would then follow us and create a domino effect. Thus we should not believe that it will follow us home, just as it did not follow us home after Vietnam.

I hope that that is sort of a fair assessment of your position. I find that it is usually the argument of most people that argue for withdrawal.

To it I would respond that Afghanistan is drastically different than Vietnam in one major point: That unlike Vietnam (or Iraq), we actually were attacked from Afghanistan.

If we leave prematurely what is to say that the same will not occur again if the same conditions that sheltered the Taliban are restored again? It is easy for the talking heads at MSNBC, CNN, and Fox to criticize him for sending more troops and setting a deadline to leave. But in the end, if we withdraw and instability breeds a new attack on this country it will be Obama who will be held accountable, not the talking heads, not Kucinich, and not anyeone else...

Obama absolutely did the right thing in pursuing this course of action. The people arguing that we should withdraw and cut our losses are ignoring the danger of leaving and allowing instability to grow again. In the end, if we leave and are then attacked again they have the luxury of hiding in their rooms and shutting up.

Obama does not have that luxury...

Urbangypsy: I am so relieved that all the fear mongering did not affect you. Try to find any substantial evidence linking Afghanistan to 9/11. I dare ya.

bush and cheney should have been indicted for war crimes at the world court for invading iraq...or at least impeached in the U.S., but were allowed to go home with millions they made.

Ryan,

Not so. Let's look at it from a different perspective. The Gulf War ended with a UN recognized treaty that required Iraq to do certain things. Over 1000 violations of that treaty occurred and most against US and British forces authorized by the UN to be there.

To preface, I'm not saying it was you, but most people (as evidenced from the time devoted to coverage on national media and political discourse) did not give a rat's behind about the men and women in Afghanistan before it became a convenient attack on Obama. A few weeks ago, most righties were trying to crucify Obama for not sending more troops to Afghanistan precisely when the general ordered it. I can't wait to turn on FOX to see how this spins now...

Lots of people care more than you know. If you get your evidence from the time devoted to coverage on national media, you would think Obama was qualified to be President too.

You don't need to watch Fox News...there's more than enough spin on this site, and from this poster. You take the news of the day filter it through the "I hate Obama" lens and you get the same tired shit that Fox is peddling, just with more self riotousness. Your point is well taken healthcare12345. Tomorrow will bring more news and thus new opportunities the to bash the President and then that will be the most important thing.

Obama and genuine in the same sentence, there's a first. Don't tell me you beleive one word coming out of that Chicago politician's mouth. Ah, the young, the naive, you have to love them.

"Ah, the young, the naive, you have to love them."

You couldn't be more self-righteous and pompous if you tried.

All politicians bullshit us, he just has a smoother delivery. I must take issue with your stereotyping of Texas. I live in Austin which is super progressive and respected all over this nation, look into it before you judge all of us!

As politicians do, he says exactly what we want to hear... and since most people oppose the war he has to pretend like it was a hard decision to save some face.. I fear for anyone who thinks a politician is being genuine. I'm sure it wouldn't have been an easy decision if he was the one who had made it... They are all liars, and party lines are just a facade. The president is like the mascot of the real powers, he makes appearances and talks with wonderful enunciation, spreading all the same lies while people profit over the same wars for the same bankers. Nothing has changed.

I don't believe a word that comes out of his mouth. I've seen him lie too many times.

FYI, the military has planned a 6 month deployment. All 30,000 troops will be in place by June of 2010.

as opposed to having them now if obama wouldve acted on the recommendation his general gave back in august

now our troops have to suffer through the harsh afghanistan winter without any new support

I never saw you complaining about the troops having to suffer through the harsh winters when Bush was president. Please save the fake outrage for someone else buddy...

If there is anyone that should shut up during all of this it should be conservatives who completely ignored Afghanistan for 8 years while they went on adventures in Iraq.

atleast george bush was fighting the war to win. not using our troops for political purposes

did u see the soldiers during the speech obama gave?

they were practically falling asleep!

and i dont want to play politics with our troops as u would like to, but wether youre a conservative or a liberal you want to see our troops safe, and you want to give them the resources they need to win this war. but for some reason obama thinks he knows better then the general, who is out there everyday with these troops, while obama is on letterman.

bush isnt president anymoore, so obama is completely responsible for our troops. i know you guys like to revisit the bush years alot, but theres troops in harms way right now, so please put away your liberal/conservative arguments for another time.

"and i agree Afghanistan should've been the priority.

Iraq was doing a good job of keeping Iran on their toes."

-ibrake4rappers13

get to know someone before you judge them

Oh please, anyone that supported Bush has not right to be here criticizing Obama. If Bush was fighting to win then why did he ignore Afghanistan for 8 years while going on an adventure in Iraq? And don't even mention Obama "using the troops" for politics... How many times did Bush make speeches surrounded by troops? Let's not go there.

I'm sure both presidents cared about the troops deeply. There is no doubt in my mind that Bush was passionate about this country, but he was a terrible commander in chief.

You criticize Obama for "not sending the troops in august" as the commanders had asked. And yet I never saw ONE single Republican criticizing Bush for not sending them earlier either despite all the pleas for more reinforcements from commanders.

I would have taken you more seriously if you had been tough on Bush too. But the fact that I saw none of you complaining about this earlier tells me that your criticism is insencere and based on partisanship and not actual concern...

i had no idea you were omnipotent

i was tough on george bush during his presidency and supported obama during the election because i was so sick of george bush that i was gullible to support the next president who was anti bush wether it was kerry or obama i didnt want another republican to win. i even went so far as to tell my friends to vote for obama (and they did)

i was so eager for change that i didnt pay attention to the person who was preaching this to me

I think you mean "omniscient", rather than "omnipotent".

lol yes thats wat i meant

I take that back then. I came to a conclusion too quickly. But what's with all the skepticism? I'd say give him time, he's got a lot on his plate. I thought the plan had the best of both worlds.

Hm, okay I chucked. But I don't know how this relates to the thread topic.

I dont think it was supposed to relate. Think it was supposed to be a fun distraction from the intense topic. And it made me laugh.

OOOOO goodie!

hahaha. Oh Jan!

I voted for Obama but never expected him to keep all his promises. No president ever does. But I believe him when he says we'll be out of that swill pit for a couple reasons. One, because by the time we are ready to withdraw, America will have been a war for 11 years and there will be no rationale argument that will convince any sane person that we should stay longer. Second, the presidential elections. Third, were broke.

There is already no reason to be there. We don't need to wait another three years.

You thought he was good to begin with?

Well, OK probably true, but as a post above yours had pointed out, he did campaign on refocusing the "war on terror" to Afghanistan. Anybody in their right mind would have voted against the Iraq war...not too many people in their right mind around anymore...

Obama did not vote against the Iraq war. He spoke out against it but wasn't a member of Congress at the time.

He did vote several times to increase the funding.

Well said.

Everyone to include the President says our partner government in Astan was fraudulently elected and is corrupt. Who will we be training? Are they corrupt as well? What will they do with the skills we give them when we leave? Keeping our troops in harms way with a corrupt partner is not a recipe for success.

Our original goal was to knock the Taliban out of power. We did that. Let's go home.

Happy Birthday!

Big banks, bank owners, money changers, IMF, World Bank, Sachs of Gold, The Fed.

Rothchilds Rockefellers military industrial complex multi-national corporations

WhiteNoise,

Do you know if Obama was or is a member of the Bohemian Grove?

Definitely the big bankers, The Federal Reserve, Council on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission , they are all connected and its sad how little is actually controlled by our government.

WhiteNoise,

Thank you for your post and the response to my question.

YES HE DOES!
I wish he would of had a real chance of being president!

ya props to Kucinich. I hate that (EX- congressman.. wonder why) santorum guy and his stupid smirk.

I like Kucinich too. He’s great. But how many delegates did he win as a Presidential candidate? The answer…zero (before he withdrew and endorsed Obama btw). Pretending that at least half the nation doesn't exist is not a path for making progress.

Let’s say Obama had followed Kucinich’s advice, broken his campaign promise and just pulled out of Afghanistan. What do you imagine the results would be? I think we could safely say that fewer American troops would be in harms way…at least in the short term. And that’s a very good thing. But we can just as safely assume that both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s influence would be greatly enhanced by sending yet another foreign invader packing. The Taliban would be back in charge of a majority of that country within a year. Now, I hear a lot of talk about not sacrificing one more American life for this war. What does it say for the ultimate sacrifice that 930 Americans have already made in Afghanistan if we were to leave only to see the Taliban back in power, Al-Qaeda as strong as ever and Bin Laden still at large?

And that’s just what happens in Afghanistan. Let’s imagine what would happen back here for a minute. The first thing is that the 50% (at least) of this country who lean conservative would run the liberals out of congress on a rail in 2010. You heard Santorum, how could you vote for a nearly 800 billion spending package and then not have enough for the troops in Afghanistan? It would be a blood bath. And without congress, there goes every liberal initiative. If you think Obama had to cave on health care, the environment, labor, energy, LGBT issues or increased regulation….just wait until he’s fighting a Republican Congress. Then comes 2012. I wonder what President Plain’s take will be on those issues. I’m going to guess not so good. And I wonder if she’ll be interested in any foreign wars. After all…there’s always Iran and North Korea. Or maybe we’ll get Iraq 3.

I won’t argue that there’s not a case to be made to just bring the troops home…there absolutely is. Hell, it might be the right course of action. But anyone suggesting that there is some kind of easy answer or that this represents some kind of betrayal should pull their head out of their ass. This is far from black and white. And that includes the honorable gentleman from Ohio (who by the way voted to authorize the use of military force in Afghanistan along with every other member of Congress except one).

As you just pointed out.

Is "ignorant people" a label?

ouch

We should really try to play nice kids.

yes, i will keep hating war

That's not a rebuttal, that's rap lyrics.

True believers believe no matter what.

it won't. fifty bucks says with the tremendous increase in republican voters due to fox news some war monger will enter office and reverse all withdrawals. even put troops back into cities in iraq.

Why not now?

bush ended the iraq war, but im sure obama will take credit for it, even while refusing to to take responsiblity for the economy.

youre smart enough to know its not that simple

Riiight, and black is white, night is day, left i s right.

He's going out with a bang, he wants to send a message to the insurgents trying to take a foothold and he also wants the afghan government to make a stronger foundation of civilian police and military with less corruption before he pulls out. He didn't start the war but he's trying to end it right.

You don't end wars with escalation. That is bull shit.

Than how do you end wars mate?

You end war through victory. To achieve victory you have to first define the purpose of the war. The original intent behind the invasion of Afghanistan was to remove the Taliban from power. We have already achieved victory. Let's go home.

home! the english are two many! -Scotsman in Braveheart

Troops would be home by now if we werent lied to by Bush all those years.

Yes, go figure. The hijacking of our food supply is not a 'developing story' however. Just anything cut and pasted by certain posters.

such complaints are petty and juvenile, and belittle the entire community.

want me to call the whaaaambulance, janforgore? you get a lot of stories on the front page.

lol, keep saying democrat.. if it wasnt for the worst republican president in US history, we shouldve been done with this war years ago. Hes already pulling troops out of Iraq when Bush said the war is in Iraq as much as it is in Afghan. Education differs between these two presidents.

you say war, singular, which is wrong. it is the Iraq war that got us into this mess.

Right, because of fixing a nation that was not too well off before we went in and worse off after we went in would be a waste of time, and besides policing the world in a half assed manner the United States should eliminate country that we invade but then decide is too difficult and/or time consuming to improve.

Right. Good riddance to Bush and shit hole #2, Cheney.

oddly homoerotic....

"Right, because of fixing a nation that was not too well off before we went in and worse off after we went in would be a waste of time, and besides policing the world in a half assed manner the United States should eliminate country that we invade but then decide is too difficult and/or time consuming to improve."

Precisely. We need to finish the job Russia couldn't, and just start with a clean slate.

Wow, finish the job that Russia started? The Taliban gained strength in Afghanistan because, during the cold war when Soviet Russia was invading, we sent people to train some populace of Afghanistan how to take out helicopters and manned vehicles with guerilla tactics and RPG's. We also put them under the impression that we would help rebuild their nation after they drove out the Soviets, which we never did!

Though I'm not sure if going into Afghanistan in the manner we did was a good idea or not, the point is that we are there and we fucked the country up a great deal almost ten years ago. No, it probably wasn't a particularly nice place to live before we went in. Yes, it was probably nicer than it is now. We need to stay in Afghanistan and help secure and rebuild the nation so that they might have a more favorable idea of who we are as to a more horrid one. Not rebuilding an enemy nation is a very large part of how we got into the second world war. The only real difference is that it was not the nation of Afghanistan that attacked us, it was merely the nation that the terrorist resided in.

I'm always surprised by how quickly that gets turned around. Liberals disagreed with the way we entered the country, and now that it has suffered the predictable trials of warfare, we are expected to turn it into a thriving industrial nation. How about we slash and burn all the poppy fields, shoot anyone carrying a rifle, and then just leave? That's my exit plan, kill every combatant, destroy their crippling opium trade, and dip out of that shit hole. Sound good?

Ares, WTF...have you read a history book or anything on current events in the past ten years?!

The only reason why the country has suffered the "predictable trials of warfare" is because we handled the entire affair in a half assed manner. We didn't follow through in capturing one of the primary leaders responsible, we blew a country that was nearly in the stone age back further than thus mentioned time period, then we left to go fight in another nation that had nothing to do with our security as a nation, allowing the enemy that we had chased and cornered to escape. If we had stayed and not only finished the fight, but cleaned up after ourselves then Afghanistan might actually have been in decent, though I doubt great, shape today and realistically would be a very little problem if one at all.

Right now our president at least seems to understand that we need to fix up the nation so that it can develop healthily on it's own.

Or we could just blast the nation to shit, reining in a new wave of genocide in the early portion of the century, watch as world opinion of us drops lower than even Bush could have seen if he had twenty years to run this nation, and oh, the retaliation of other middle eastern nations would be priceless, and potentially shattering not only to our way of oil dependent life, but also could mark a new, much larger holy war against the United States. Wouldn't that be brilliant.

Ryan8566, could you please clarify to whom you are referring to?

What job exactly did we start? I dare you to answer that intelligently.

"Right now our president at least seems to understand that we need to fix up the nation so that it can develop healthily on it's own."

Please. First we shouldn't have gotten involved because it was Bush, now Obama is a saint for trying to turn the "mess" into a miracle?

Jon - What job did we start? Deposing the Taliban and thus collapsing the infrastructure that allowed Al-Qaeda to freely move and operate within the nation. If you aren't too busy relishing the smell of your own farts, maybe you can join us in reality.

hahahaha Ares whoooo almost thought you were serious there for a second. then i realized you must be nuts. ok i feel better. i also feel better knowing you are not in office, stop watching apocalypse now and relax and think.

Wow. Ares, it is people like you who make me scared to be an American because i know there are so many people like you out there, spreading their insightful criticisms. You obviously have no real concept of what is going on in that country (or this one for that matter) And wipe out everyone holding a weapon? I think you might be mentally ill. Does everyone carrying a weapon in the United States affiliate themselves with the Obama administration? Do all men women and children of America agree with our militaristic (imperialistic) agenda? No they obviously don't. Just as in Afghanistan, not all citizens are "terrorists" deserving death for "our protection". It's unfortunate that people like you are allowed to reproduce or bear arms for that matter... Read some books and stop bothering the intelligent people with your bullshit until you escape from that ill informed- uneducated bubble.

Couldn’t have put it better myself Prajna

I feel that getting involved in Afghanistan was not a bad decision, however I don't think that Bush deserves praise for invading Afghanistan because going to attack the Taliban after 9/11 was more or less a knee jerk reaction. Bush's screw up in the middle east was when he left Afghanistan without finishing the job so he could play cowboy in Iraq.

Your video has no off switch so I get to listen to it every time I come to this article. Did you mean it to be so intrusive?

oups...sorry..unintentional...let me correct it...

There ya go ;)

We need more people to publicize what they know like you have.
Very interesting.

Your videos are very informative and interesting, but they are nonetheless propaganda and twist facts around please do background checks on these videos before you just pull them off youtube and google video, even current videos are biased to some extent.

you seriously think america shouldnt have responded to the 9/11 attacks?

Not by sending troups to Iraq..

To tell you the truth I'm beginning to think we shouldn't have gone in Afghanistan. Our main objective was to capture or kill Bin laden. (sp?) And the Military haven't completed that task in 9 years.

And don't say, " We did it to help the Afghani people from tyranny and to have an democracy put in place." That was an afterthought. The US gov does not care about the Afghan people. If the Military got Bin Laden we would have split that place.

because bush and cheney diverted the troops and money to Iraq. this should have been over years ago, but now we pay the price.

and i agree Afghanistan should've been the priority.

Iraq was doing a good job of keeping Iran on their toes.

Why do we have to bomb entire countries to go after a few terrorists? Do we bomb L.A. to stop gang violence?

Hello?

jeff, i agree with you. we were told we would do this in two years for a few million by Bush. then he went to iraq and billions of dollars and 8 years later, thousands of needless deaths,etc.

"War is just one more big government program." ~Joseph Sobran